본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

REPUDIATORY BREACH OF CHARTERPARTY and THE METHOD OF DAMAGES CALCULATION - With regard to the actual case of ‘MV CLEMEMTINE’ in Korea Line Corporation Rehabilitation Proceedings -

3

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

After the year of 2009, several Korean shipping companies underwent rehabilitation proceedings due to financial difficulties. In those proceeding, the issue of termination of charterparties by repudiatory breach under English law which was unfamiliar at that time was frequently dealt with. There has been controversy over whether the ship owners can terminate the charterparty and claim damages against the charterers in addition to the right of withdrawal of vessel in case the charterers fail or refuse to pay hire where the governing law of the charterparties is English law. That is, English courts’ cases have two conflict decisions on the issues of whether the punctual payment of hire is a Condition and whether repudiatory breach shall be further considered. Recently, in the case of Spar Shipping, the Court of Appeal settled the disputes by rendering that the punctual payment of hire is not a Condition and then considered further whether the failure of hire payment could be regarded as repudiatory breach of the charterer. Another issue is how to calculate the amount of damages which the liable charterers shall pay when the charterparty is terminated. This article will explain, through the actual case in the rehabilitaton proceedings of Korean shipping company, how the issues of repudiatory breach and the damage calculation under English law are dealt with in the rehabilitation proceedings.

Abstract

After the year of 2009, several Korean shipping companies underwent rehabilitation proceedings due to financial difficulties. In those proceeding, the issue of termination of charterparties by repudiatory breach under English law which was unfamiliar at that time was frequently dealt with. There has been controversy over whether the ship owners can terminate the charterparty and claim damages against the charterers in addition to the right of withdrawal of vessel in case the charterers fail or refuse to pay hire where the governing law of the charterparties is English law. That is, English courts’ cases have two conflict decisions on the issues of whether the punctual payment of hire is a Condition and whether repudiatory breach shall be further considered. Recently, in the case of Spar Shipping, the Court of Appeal settled the disputes by rendering that the punctual payment of hire is not a Condition and then considered further whether the failure of hire payment could be regarded as repudiatory breach of the charterer. Another issue is how to calculate the amount of damages which the liable charterers shall pay when the charterparty is terminated. This article will explain, through the actual case in the rehabilitaton proceedings of Korean shipping company, how the issues of repudiatory breach and the damage calculation under English law are dealt with in the rehabilitation proceedings.

참고문헌 (43)

  1. Andrew W. Baker, "Time Charters" (2014), informa law from Routledge, Lloyd’s Shipping Law Library
  2. John Wilson, "Carriage of Goods by Sea" (2010), Pearson
  3. Paul Todd, "Principles of the Carriage of Goods by Sea" (2015), Routledge
  4. 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 335, , 1983
  5. 2 Lloyd’s Rep 235, , 1984
  6. 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 250, , 1976
  7. 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1, , 1981
  8. 1 Lloyd’s Rep 645, , 1983
  9. AMC 444, , 1978
  10. 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 315, , 2010
  11. 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 7, , 1971
  12. 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 653, , 2013
  13. 2 Lloyd’s Rep 357, , 1978
  14. 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 370, , 2011
  15. 2 AC 353, , 2007
  16. EWCA Civ 982, , 2016
  17. 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 186, , 1978
  18. 2 Lloyd’s Rep 61, , 2012
  19. 2KB 678, , 1939
  20. 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 75, , 1980
  21. 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 23, , 1991
  22. 2 Lloyd’s Rep 69, , 2013
  23. 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 315, , 1977
  24. 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 693, , 2003
  25. 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 47, , 2011
  26. 1 All ER 52, , 1962
  27. 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 314, , 1997
  28. 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 142, , 1995
  29. 2KB287, , 1920
  30. "Robinson v Harman (1948) 154 E.R. 363", ~ (1948)
  31. 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 441, , 1990
  32. EWHC 718 (Comm), , 2015
  33. 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 192, , 1976
  34. "Tankexpress v. Compagnie Financière Belge des Pétroles (1948) 82 Ll.L.Rep. 43", ~ (1948)
  35. 1 Lloyd’s Rep 127, , 1983
  36. 2 Lloyd’s Rep 465, , 1972
  37. 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 533, , 1994
  38. 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 649, , 1999
  39. 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 225 (H.L.), , 1996
  40. A.C. 413 (H.L.), , 1962
  41. 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 521, , 1981
  42. 1 W.L.R. 131, , 1962
  43. 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 360, , 2011

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)